Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 21 April 2017

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

User:Robertinventor/subpages

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 21st-century earthquakes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Agri and Usak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of the extensive overview of your already very extensive contributions to Talk:Four Noble Truths

Robert, you've summarized enough at Talk:Four Noble Truths; no need to do it again. I've reverted your latest additions. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, I know I did many posts in the past in a short period of time, of just a few days but one short new post after four months didn't seem excessive. Since I wrote my last post there, I have had plenty of time to reflect on what I wrote, and I have of course discussed it a fair bit off wiki and felt that with the help of some distance I could summarize the main points more clearly than I did before. So, I thought that was enough reason to do a new post.

I see someone else has reverted your edit of the talk page. Deleting a new post by an editor you have previously argued with on a talk page seems rather unusual especially without prior discussion with them about whether it should be deleted. As I just said, I feel it was okay to post there. However, having posted, I don't think it is appropriate for me to debate about whether my talk page comment there should be kept or not. If other editors decide as a consensus that it should be deleted, well so be it. I'm happy to let the comment stand on its own and be its own defense if it is needed or not. So I'm posting this just to say that. Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen anything like this on wikipedia, a talk page with just about all the comments collapsed and the collapsing done by editors with the opposing view on the article content to the person whose comments were collapsed. Robert Walker (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert, you asked me before to tell you, in a kind way, when your edits were crossing a line. They are, again. We've discussed this over and over again. So, please stop, okay? Just drop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see my post on your talk page Robert Walker (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultramicroscope

Can you explain to me why you are working so hard to have ultramicroscope in the lead of the microscope article? No one can provide a source saying it is a major tyle of microscope, including yourself, but, in spite of a lack of evidence, so many editors want this. Maybe you can explain it to me? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5D (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW I am logged out of my main account but got a notice saying there's a message on my talk page - that's why I'm signing as a different user. I am doing that because of a Buddhism discussion - I want to avoid notifications on that for a while as I feel I have said a lot in a short time and need to give others a chance to reply and discuss without me for a while. The thing is if you see a red notification you then want to read it and then when you read it, then you think of a reply - and before you know it, if you are a quick typist like me, you may find you have replied, without even giving it much thought about whether perhaps you have already written a lot that day already.

However, I have no reason to avoid notifications on the microscope discussion at all. I have hardly written overmuch there :).

So anyway - I don't feel that it should mention ultramicroscope. But it could be a way forward to satisfy the ones who want the term mentioned. So it was a compromise since otherwise it looks like it will end in a deadlock and nothing will happen. So, my reasoning there is, that it is not currently an important microscope. But it was historically important from 1902 to the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s. Back then, apparently, it was the only method available to observe particles smaller than 200 nm in size. So that makes it historically pretty important in the history of microscopy. Surely not as important as an electron microscope, at least not for us now. But enough so that it is understandable if it is mentioned in a historical paragraph in the lede of the article, not as absurd as mentioning it as one of the main types of modern microscope as it does at present. It was just a suggestion. There are good sources saying it was a major type of microscope from the 1900s through to the 1930s. Robert C. Walker (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First, there's no deadlock. One supporter is rambling, and the other cannot provide any sources. I pointed this out before, but you keep talking about the deadlock. Why?

Second, Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources. There are none, because it's not true. So, an unsupported statement will not be kept in the lead of the article. This is not a compromise situation, that some alternative fact, unsupported, should be in Misplaced Pages.

This isn't the microscopy article, it's the microscope article, so your arguments about its importance in microscopy are not in the right place.

So, can you provide a source, rather than telling me they exist? Just one.

You are currently the one who is trying to put it in the lead, there's no deadlock to keep it there, there's no need for compromise. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just replied in the discussion itself.. In summary: I gave a source that shows it was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century. It doesn't seem to be one any more. I could be persuaded either way on inclusion of it in a historical section in the lede. If it is included, my suggested paragraph should be expanded to say more about the historical development of other types of microscope. I think it does deserve mention in the historical section later on. I am opposed to its mention as a major present day instrument in the lede. I'll add this as an extra paragraph to summarize what I said there :). Thanks! And sorry for the confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the source that says what you say it says. I don't see it. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the broken link. Have replied there now with the correct link to the article. Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I already had the article. I don't see it saying, "the ultramicroscope is a major tyoe of microscope," or some variation. Please provide a quote. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We're at 6000 words or so, a dozen editors, and weeks of discussion about one unsourced word in the article lead. If you have a quote saying it is a major type of microscope, please provide it, we'll source it in the lead and move on. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have replied on the article talk page again. I found quotes that to my mind mean it was a major type of microscope in the early C20. It was more than just a microscopy method. It involved a new stand and a new type of objective, authors at the time talk about it as a microscope, not a microscopy method. I'd call it a major type of microscope back then, historical. Your mileage may vary :). Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I concede, it's not an optical microscope, it's a completely different type of microscope. Now, please source that, that it's not an optical microscope. And, oil immersion lenses are patented. Oil immersion is a major optical microscopy method today, unlike the very unfamiliar ultramicroscope, but no one is arguing to throw "oil immersion microscopes" in the lead. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk)• —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take another look at the cite I gave.

• It is an optical microscope.

  So why aren't you trying to put it in the optical microscope article instead of the microscope article? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a new design at the time and won its inventor a Nobel prize.
• The stand shines light at it from the side, and it observes scattered light against a dark background, unlike a normal microscope.
• The design also required a new kind of objective lens

One of its earliest uses was to study a kind of glass that has gold nanoparticles in it, which are only about 4 nm in diameter, and they used very bright sunlight to illuminate them, then it was possible to spot such tiny particles. They could see the particles moving as they were hit by nearby atoms, and the light was multi-coloured which gave them information about the size of the particles, something that back then they could do in no other way, so it was the first observation of nanoscale particles and it was done optically, and they were able to estimate the sizes of the particles. And they couldn't use a conventional optical microscope for the experiment but had to design a new microscope stand and new objective lens. It's all explained. There are other sources in google scholar. But you don't need to read them. The source I gave is all you need, but please read the source carefully.

It's my view that

• This is a historically significant optical microscope

  So why aren't you trying to put it in the optical microscope article instead of the microscope article's lead? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century - after all its invention got its inventor a Nobel prize and they didn't have many types of microscope back then
• It does not seem to be a major type of modern microscope - at least if it is then nobody has shared any evidence yet that it is
• I think it deserves mention in the historical section
• I could be persuaded either way about a mention in the lede, but if it is mentioned, as a historical microscope, not a present day microscope on the basis of the evidence so far
• If it is mentioned in the lede then the lede should have a reasonably detailed paragraph on microscopes, as this is hardly the most important microscope every invented, but it does seem interesting enough that it deserves a mention in a long lede paragraph about the history of microscopy.

Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll copy this summary to the discussion, as I think it may help to put it there as well. And I'll amend my oppose vote to say this bit about it being potentially historically significant. Robert C. Walker (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have just amended my oppose vote and also added a weak support as a historically significant microscope. That makes my vote consistent with what I say in the discussion area which should help, thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave it, for a historically significant microscope. You don't seem to have read it as you said it was not an optical microscope in your last comment. It explains clearly that it is. Please re-read it. If that is not enough, sorry I just don't know what else you need, and may need to bail out of this conversation unless you can explain a bit more clearly what it is you want. It's probably something I'm missing, but if so, sorry, I just haven't understood what else it is that you are asking for, not yet. Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading your discussion of how you think an SEM works, I assume, although I don't know for sure, that you're trolling me, but, as far as the RFC goess, you're just another "support" without a source. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trolling you. Why would you think that? If there is something wrong in my explanation of how the SEM works, do say! I won't be offended. I'm not an expert in electron microscopes :). I put it in as a place holder to explain how that section could be expanded just like the optical microscopes section. As usual on wikipedia I'd expect community editing to improve what I wrote. I have no idea what you mean by saying I don't have a source. Sorry. I just don't get what you want there. It is only a weak support and it is not a support for including it as a major type of modern microscope. I just did it so that my vote there would be accurate because you kept challenging me saying my vote in the RfC did not match what I said in the discussion. It was not open to me to change what I said in the discussion as those are my views. So to make the two areas consistent to match your challenges I had to edit my vote instead.

And as for the final decision, well it's an RfC, and I am a previously uninvolved participant putting forward my honest view on the point at dispute. I came to it as a result of searching wikipedia for an RfC that I could comment on as an uninvolved editor. I had no previous involvement in the discussion. I made my vote there and I explained my vote in the discussion. That is all that is expected from a participant in an RfC. Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with your explanation of an SEM, you just made up some stuff about BSE imaging mode and added some other random stuff about scattering of electrons and x-rays. Lol.

As for the RFC, it's about an unsourced statement in the lead of the microscope and you're going on about the optical microscope article. So, yes, I assume you're trolling. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it after your completely random comments about SEMs. Sure, make up random stuff, then ask me to tell you what's wrong with it. The TEM s5uff is useless also, but after the BSE statement on SEMs I stopped reading. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I am not an expert on electron microscopes. I just read the article on the scanning electron microscope. What I wrote is a summary of what the article says about how the SEM works, as I understood it. See Scanning_electron_microscope#Principles_and_capacities. If this is wrong, I suggest you go and edit the article to fix whatever issues you have identified with how the SEM works. Or explain to me what I have misunderstood about the explanation in that article. It wasn't the main focus of my comment, it was just meant as an example to show how you could have a longer historical section and it would still not overburden the lede, and it could briefly explain how each type of instrument works. Of course in the course of collaborative editing, other editors would fix whatever is wrong with the description of how a SEM works in the lede. Robert Walker (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you think your paragraph which focuses on scattering, TEM thin sections, and the BSE signal is related to the section you quote? What is the first signal it mentions, which you completely omit? "This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, ...." Does it say anywhere in the SEM article that the instrument was invented to "eliminate the need for a thin section?" Please read what it says about thin sections in that article. Then, you focus on the BSE signal, while the article says all over the place that the SE signal is primary. No where in that section does it mention detecting "scattered x-rays." That you read that section, then write what you wrote, means there is no way I can explain to you what is wrong with your paragraph. The same with your willful interpretation of the ultramicroscope journal article to support your desire to highlight it in the microscope article, in particular your inability to see that the optical microscope article and the microscope article are two different articles. You are either trolling with the electron microscopy paragraph, and that you quote a section of the SEM article which includes nothing you said seems to indicate it, or your comprehension level is far too low for me to explain it. So that's over. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's from the Electron microscope article:

"The major disadvantage of the transmission electron microscope is the need for extremely thin sections of the specimens, typically about 100 nanometers"

.

So, dimplers, dual beams, tripod polishers, and ultramicrotomy were invented. The SEM does not eliminate the need for thin sections by looking at the BSE signal, which does not gather the same information, and no article says that.--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It mentions many other advantages of SCM in that article.

"Generally, the image resolution of an SEM is at least an order of magnitude poorer than that of a TEM. However, because the SEM image relies on surface processes rather than transmission, it is able to image bulk samples up to many centimeters in size and (depending on instrument design and settings) has a great depth of field, and so can produce images that are good representations of the three-dimensional shape of the sample. Another advantage of SEM is its variety called environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) can produce images of sufficient quality and resolution with the samples being wet or contained in low vacuum or gas. This greatly facilitates imaging biological samples that are unstable in the high vacuum of conventional electron microscopes"

But I felt that was too much detail for a short sentence in the lede. It was just an example of how you would talk about electron microscopes in a historical lede for the Microscope. I only spent a couple of minutes drafting it, based on reading those two articles and my own understanding of the electron microscope for what it is. It's okay if you think I am not clever enough to understand this topic. I am just a volunteer editor who came to the RfC to put my vote there :). I haven't even edited the article itself, at all, just posted an example paragraph to the talk page to show in an approximate way how one might cover the historical development of the microscope. If it ever does get added I expect the whole thing to be rewritten by many editors in the future :). That's how wikipedia works. Even if you don't know much about a subject, just enough to get started on writing about it, you can "be bold" and write something and then leave it for others to improve it. Robert C. Walker (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5 and 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5: - I think the best way to answer your point is to share an SEM image. I'll answer here to avoid breaking up the text.

That's what a SEM image looks like. It eliminates the need for thin sections only 500 nm in thickness (0.0005 mm) which is a severe limitation of a transmission electron microscope. To give you an idea of scale, the smallest ant is around 0.75 millimeters in size (from the Ant article), or around 750,000 nm. The TEM does have advantages as well, or we wouldn't have them, including very high resolution, but when it comes to imaging large objects, then the SEM is what you need of those two. It has several other advantages too as summarized in that quote I gave from the SEM article. Robert C. Walker (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't eliminate the need for thin sections. TEMs still exist. And they still need thin sections. If you're going to shoot the ant's thigh muscle tissue, on an SEM or TEM you still need a thin section. It's a completely different image. The article does not say that TEMs were invented to replace SEMs.

Guess what? That's not a back scattered elecron image, either.

And a thin section 500 nm thick is not electron transparent. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what you are reading at all. And, instead of making an effort to understand one sentence, you keep reading more, and coming up with more evidence that you comprehended nothing. Or you're trolling. lol --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say what kind of SEM image it is, just that it is an SEM image. As I said, I'm not an expert in electron microscopes. I make no claim to be. I just did an example of how you could mention different types of microscope in the lede. This image of an ant is given in the article Electron_microscope#Scanning_electron_microscope_.28SEM.29 as an example of a SEM image. If that article is wrong in identifying it in this way do edit that article and fix it. Misplaced Pages depends on experts to fix things. I wrote above "The TEM does have advantages as well, or we wouldn't have them, including very high resolution, but when it comes to imaging large objects, then the SEM is what you need of those two.".

All of this is about a single sentence in a paragraph that I suggested as a replacement for the lede as a way to show how the ultramicroscope could be mentioned as a major historical microscope though not as a present day microscope, which I weakly support at present in the RfC. The RfC isn't even about electron microscopes. I am glad we are discussing it here rather than in the discussion area of the RfC as it would flood that page and seriously annoy other editors there. But here on my own talk page I am not in the least bit bothered by such things. I enjoy these conversations, I learn a lot, even when there are many miscommunications. So long as you are genuine and not trolling me, I'm happy to continue with this. So here is the passage we are discussing in a comment I made on the talk page for the Microscope article under Talk:Microscope#Discussion_of_inclusion_of_ultramicroscope_as_a_historically_significant_microscope_in_the_lede.

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937. This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, light produced and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, and use these to build up a picture of the specimen."

So far you have just said it is nonsense and LOL'd at it, but you haven't yet mentioned a factual error in it that I can recognize, you have said nothing that would persuade me to change anything there yet. You challenged my statement that the SEM removes the need for a thin section. But I shared an SEM image that shows an image of an ant which is clearly not a thin section. So how can you say that the SEM doesn't remove the need for a thin section? Of course you still can use a thin section with an SEM, but you can also do images of specimens that are not sliced up in that way. So thin sections are no longer necessary, so it has eliminated the need for a thin section. I didn't say it has "eliminated the possibility of a thin section". Is that a bit clearer?

I wondered if you might be trolling me. But I know some editors here pay very close attention to fine points of detail and you may well not be trolling me. But I am finding this conversation quite hard to follow, all the twists and turns, and don't understand what you want of me or why you are focused so much on this material about the electron microscope. And I don't know what it is you think is wrong with it, after many comments back and forth. And as I said, it is not even in an article. It hasn't even been commented on by anyone except you. I have no idea whether they will want to use it. Is quite possible nobody will be interested in it at all. What does it matter if I got something wrong there anyway - except of course as something of interest perhaps to discuss between ourselves. The idea was just to show my suggestion that rather than just a long list of types of microscope by name, that it should instead have fewer types of microscope, the ones of most relevance to the history of the microscope, and say a sentence or two about each one. That is my opinion on the RfC. Other editors of course are free to have other opinions. The idea of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. I am an uninvolved editor. I gave my opinion. That is what is expected of me on that page :). Robert Walker (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article says SEI is the primary imaging mode and you said the SEM was invented to take BSE images to replace thin sections (which are transmitted electron images). The article discussed characteristic x-rays, and you mention scattered x-rays. I can't explain any error to you, because you read "scattered" when you see "characteristic," and "backscattered" when you see "secondary." Then you post a wall of text. You are unwilling to see what is written or can't see it. So no error can be pointed out to you, as you don't speak or read the language in the text.

What matters is it shows your complete inability and unwillingness to understand what you read. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a single sentence, either, it's every sentence. No one is going to add that to the text. It's not information. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so there is one sentence that you say is incorrect:

"This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, light produced and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, and use these to build up a picture of the specimen."

It doesn't seem hard to correct it to fix what you said. I have just removed the word "scattered". There is on need to go into the detail of what is meant by "characteristic X-rays" at this stage in a short sentence in the lede for a new reader. I've said "back scattered electrons instead of transmitted electrons" and changed "need" to "requirement" which is what I meant but "need" was a bit ambiguous.

"This removes the requirement for a thin section by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons, and can use the secondary electrons and any of the other information to build up a picture of the specimen."

Does that fix it? This is how a community editing works here, we work together to improve the material. We don't expect editors to be expert in what they write, they do their best. But I wasn't even editing the main article. As I said I spent a few minutes on it and it wasn't meant for the main article at all. It was just to show the idea. But as you say if it has errors in it which is no surprise as I'm no expert on electron microscopes, that will obscure the main point there so good to fix that!

Is that sentence now correct? Any other mistakes you spotted? If that one is okay then I will just to back to my post and edit that sentence, which I'll do with a strike out to make it clear I had to correct it and add a comment at the end, linking to this discussion for explanation. If you have issues with any of the other sentences in my example, then do say likewise and I'll fix it. If the whole thing needs to be rewritten, I'll just do a strike out of the whole thing and post a new version. Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is still completely wrong, and so is the rest of the paragraph. Why are you resistant to letting people who understand the topic or can read the technical literature edit the article?

"This removes the requirement for a thin section by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons, and can use the secondary electrons and any of the other information to build up a picture of the specimen."

First off SEMs aren't designed to remove the requirement for a thin section. You made that up. It's not anywhere in any article you consulted. I keep pointing that out, and you keep saying it's true. It's not. SEMs take completely different kinds of images, although, they can also be used to to image thin sections, also, if they have the right detector. SEMs scan the surface of a sample, and TEMs transmit beams of electrons through a sample.

The SEM did NOT remove the requirement for thin sectioning to replace the TEM. Basically a TEM transmits a beam of electrons through a sample to image interior structure, and an SEM scans the surface with a beam of electrons to generate signals.

How many ways do I have to say it? The SEM does NOT remove the requirement for thin sections for internal structure. You drew that conclusion. Internal structure STILL REQUIRES thin sectioning.

The only purpose of detecting x-rays is to detect characteristic x-rays.

I have no idea what you mean by "back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons." Both signals are generated if the specimen is thin enough, and if you do something like freeze fracture, your secondary electrons are your biological imaging signal, not BSEs. See, you made up that thing about SEMs being a replacement for having to thin section for TEM, and now you're citing yourself. The BSE signal does not replace the transmitted electron signal and no article said that. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you are reading what I wrote in a different way from what I intended. I do understand that point that a TEM and a SEM take completely different images. I never meant to suggest that a SEM takes the same type of images as a TEM. Never. I know they are a different type of image. The TEM uses a thin section and transmitted electrons. The SEM uses secondary electrons (thanks for the correction) and BSEs. Of course both are generated in the TEM but it doesn't use the secondary electrons. I know all that. So the only problem is to make sure that my sentence says that clearly. Let me try again is this clearer to you? I've changed the order of the words, divided it into two sentences and replaced "requirement" by "restriction". This is what I meant to say:

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. This removes the restriction to thin sections of a transmission electron microscope. "

Is that okay now? Any other major issues with the paragraph? These things can be sorted out. 81.158.47.111 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not okay, and it will never be okay, as long as you keep saying that thing about removing the restriction to thin sections. It doesn't remove that restriction. You still have to have a thin section for a transmitted image in the TEM or the SEM. Why do you keep saying that? It doesn't remove the necessity of ultra thin sectioning. I can't imagine what more you need me to say. Your statement is BS, at the beginning, the end, or the Middle. But you keep saying it. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

All I am trying to say with that sentence is that a SEM can take images of ants and other things and is not restricted to only imaging thin sections. That you agree on as you agree that image of an ant was taken by a SEM. So all we need to agree on here is how to say that in text in a way that is so unambiguous that both you and I read it the same way. We are on the same page as far as what it should say, I think.

Actually TEMs can be used to take images of other things than thin sections. I am trying to suggest you stop trying to say that about thin sections. It's wrong. The statement is about how demanding thin section sample prep is for TEM, it's not about TEMs can only be used for thin sections. That's wrong. It's not about SEMs being more versatile because they don't require thin sections. That's not true. You are completely off target, and I can't get you to stop trying to say it. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. This makes it possible to image large objects instead of being restricted to only imaging thin sections like a transmission electron microscope. "

And why do you separate out back scattered electrons? It's a more primary signal than EDS. Why? Why? And it's not about the size of the object. You have to have custom chambers to image large objects, and when you say that you start talking about specialized SEMs, a type of electron microscope in an article on microscopes in general? Why? Why get so specific?

It's not about the thin section. How many ways can I tell you that you are wrong about that? You can't image "large objects" on most SEMs. It's not about the size or thickness. It's not. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that now clearer? It's a bit more verbose, but hopefully now the reader can only read it one way. Or do you still read it as meaning that - for things that need ultra thin sectioning, that the SEM removes that need? Or is there some point that I am missing still? If so, are you able to explain it? Bear in mind, I am probably typical of a scientifically literate reader who is not specialist in electron microscopes. So how I read it also matters as I'm a typical reader of the article, who is also interested in the subject as well, what's more. I was interested enough to respond to the request to comment on the RfC and continue to be interested throughout this long conversation (or I'd have stopped and gone away). Robert C. Walker (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

NO! If something needs ultra thin sectioning to view on a TEM, it still needs ultra thin sectioning to view on an SEM! Again, you are wrong about this! Wrong! How many more ways do I have to say it?--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, my idea for this paragraph in the lede, to focus on the historically important steps. So here, with the SEM, for the first time in history they could take images of things larger than just a 500 nm section, at sub-optical resolution. So that is a significant historical development in terms of microscopes. Robert C. Walker (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

An SEM isn't about not having to use thin sections. It's not! If you want to see internal tissue on an SEM you still have to thin section. And you image thin sections on an SEM if you have a detector. And, you can't view a tissue biopsy on an SEM just by using a larger piece, you need a TEM.

It's not about the thin section. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I told you 500nm is not electron transparent. Ultra thin sections for TEM are between 40 and 100ish nm. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh if you said that, I didn't notice. I must have copied the figure down wrong. Looking at the article it says 100 nm. Please remember I spent all of a couple of minutes or so on that sentence. It was not the main focus and I didn't expect it to get so much attention. I totally understand. When you say "If something needs ultra thin sectioning to view on a TEM, it still needs ultra thin sectioning to view on an SEM" - I know that. I always knew that right from when I first wrote that sentence. If the sentence seems to be saying something otherwise it means not that the sentence is wrong, but that it is ambiguous. You read it one way. I read it another way. I need to explain that the SEM lets you image large items like ants and you are not restricted to only imaging thin sections. I didn't say the SEM Can't image thin sections.

If I put it this way, is it now okay for you?

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. "This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness."

I'm fine with the paragraph either way as I read both of them as saying the same thing :). I've corrected 500 nm to 100 nm. Anything else to fix? Robert C. Walker (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The basics

"The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness."

No, this is not true. TEMs are not restricted to thin sections. You misunderstood the sentence about the limitations. Please STOP trying to add this to the microscope article.

"This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness."

No. Your statement is not only false but also off target. You can't image objects of any thickness or size in an SEM, and because you are obsessed with thick and thin you missed completely what an SEM does. Your statement is not only ambiguous, it's also wrong and misleading.

--2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To be very clear, even though I have said this dozens of times, stop including thin sections and objects of any size or thickness. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

First. I am not trying to add this to the microscope article :). The only reason to discuss this at all is for an example of how the lede paragraph might look for a comment in an RfC on the article talk page. So far nobody has commented on that discussion, so it looks very unlikely that it will be added to the article. The requirements on comments in discussion talk pages are much less stringent than the requirements for the articles itself. And editors are permitted to make mistakes on talk pages. They are permitted to make mistakes in articles too. When that happens other editors just correct the mistakes. It's just not an issue to make a mistake, that's what community editing is all about. If we all waited until an expert comes along who can write a perfect article with no mistakes there would be hardly anything on wikipedia.

Still, I'd like to get it right even so. I appreciate your corrections for that reason.

I'm sorry, I just have no idea why you say that TEM's are not restricted to thin sections. Are you saying that TEM's can image thick objects? Surely they have to be transparent to electrons. I suppose if you had a material that was electron transparent when thick it would work too but I think just about all the materials they image have to be sectioned to be 100 nm in thickness before they are electron transparent. If I have misunderstood something here, please say! I don't say this is the only distinction. The main distinction as I understand it is that TEMs use transmitted electrons and are based on transparency. While SEM's primarily used either back scattered electrons or secondary electrons, light etc to image the object and don't rely on transmitted electrons. Of course in both cases you get all those kinds of phenomena, so the distinction is based on how they are used. If I have misunderstood do say. If I still can't understand what you are saying, well, I'll update my comment there with my best understanding to date, which is the last edit above, and just leave it at that and leave it for other editors to do further comments :). Remember, editors are permitted to make mistakes here. Especially in talk pages. Maybe another editor will come along and explain my mistakes to me in a way that I can understand, if I can't understand you. Robert Walker (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A thin section is a specific type of sample. Viruses and bacteria are frequently imaged as suspensions, a very major use of TEMs. So many more examples.

Stop with the back scattered electrons, also. The primary imaging mode for an SEM is the secondary electron imaging mode.

You need to stop wasting time with your obsession with thick objects in the SEM. I don't know how to say this. You are wasting everyone's time because you keep thinking that the SEM was invented to look at thick things. It wasn't. It was invented to look at different things. No, you don't understand tbat be cause you keep including it in your paragraph. Then you're going to try to start a five month 10,000 word discussion on it by posting this to the microscope page. No one will explain it to you, because you are obsessed with putting thick objects in the SEM. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your paragraph is wrong, uses bad emphasis, contradicts other articles on Misplaced Pages, is unsourceable, and every sentence needs edited. Why? Why spend time on it Why? It offers nothing usable. Then, on top of that, no matter how many times I say it's not about size, you continue to make the entire paragraph a discussion of size. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. As I see it I have fixed every specific thing you said was wrong. You still say it is wrong. I won't ask you to spend any more time on it. I will add a comment to the RfC discussion with this new version of the paragraph, and leave it at that. I will re-iterate that it is just a suggestion to show the idea of how you could introduce the various types of microscope by mentioning fewer types, going into more detail about each one rather than just a list of names, and to use the historical approach as a gentle introduction to the topic for a newbie reader,. I will also say that I would expect it to be rewritten extensively if it is used in the lede. Thanks for helping to clear up some points, even though I know you think the result is still wrong. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'll say the same things there. The article will never be improved. The SEM is not about thin sections, and you'll get to waste other people's time. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead. Maybe others there will understand what you are saying and then say something that I can understand. Or use what I say in some other way. It's all fine. My suggested paragraph was just one view presented in the discussion area of an RfC for goodness sake! There is no point in a re-run of this conversation there. I'd have stopped long ago if we were talking on the talk page of the article itself :). And - I expect the article will get improved :). You can try improving the other areas of the article. If you find the RfC frustrating, try working on the body of the article and improve that instead :). These sorts of RfCs on fine points in the lede of an article often go on for a long time in wikipedia, sometimes multiple RfCs over a number of years before it gets resolved. It's just the way it is here. If it's too much for you, I suggest just finding other things to edit, including the body of the article itself or another article :). And it's none of my responsibility, I didn't invent how wikipedia works, or the idea of community editing or of RfCs, I'm just a participant in an RfC :). Robert Walker (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No. As long as editors here add unsourced crap to articles they don't understand I'm going to fight it. You go ahead and stuff your huge objects into an SEM. But don't subject readers who come to Misplaced Pages for information to your lack of understanding. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. You just completely have lost me. I have not a clue what you are talking about. You seem to contradict yourself as you agreed earlier that the image I posted was a SEM image of an ant. I don't think my posts to the RfC have been excessive. As for here, I just answered you post for post. Indeed you often did two posts for my one. And I haven't added anything at all to the Microscope article. All I did was vote in an RfC on it, in its talk page and contribute to the discussion there. I have never done a single edit of the article. Another editor did add some unsourced material to the article and I voted with you on the RfC, an "Oppose" vote. But that wasn't good enough for you. Because I also said that the ultramicroscope, though not a major instrument now, was a major type of instrument in the early twentieth century for three decades, you fought me on that topic saying it was inconsistent with my Oppose vote in the RfC until eventually I had to add a "weak support as a historical instrument" as the only way to make my remarks in the discussion area consistent with my vote in the RfC. As I am still of the opinion from the Nobel prizes, and the historical articles from the present day that it was a historically significant instrument back then, then - that was the obvious response. So you brought this all on yourself, and then when you continued to insist I clarify my remarks then I wrote a suggestion for a draft paragraph for the lede to explain how it could be mentioned from a historical perspective. I explained it was just to show the idea and bound to be altered before adding if anyone thought it was worth doing. You then pointed out mistakes in that paragraph. Just a paragraph I wrote in the RfC in response to your challenges to my weak support of it as a historically important microscope. I tried to fix those mistakes. You say it still has mistakes in it. You also went through marking every sentence as uncited - it has no cites because it wasn't meant as an article paragraph, the cites would be easy to add but you don't have to cite material on a talk page. And you say it is still wrong, though I don't understand why. Well so what, I don't see the mistakes but if it does, it's no big deal.

Even mistakes in an article are no big deal, eventually someone fixes it. But a mistake in a comment by an editor in the discussion area of an RfC on its talk page? ... Let's see what other editors say if anyone else comments. Thanks :). I think I need to drop this conversation so if you reply again - which you are of course free to do, I will postpone my next reply for a few days. I have enjoyed this conversation. I have learnt some new things I didn't know about SEMs and TEMs. Even now, I'm not upset by it, just puzzled. But I feel it is going nowhere, round in circles, so it's time to stop. Robert Walker (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sleep tight tonight

Sleep tight tonight anyway; I envy your remote Scottish island. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Four Noble Truths

Hi Robert. Could you please focus the discussion on Four Noble Truths? Though, admittedly, I haven't read everything you've written, it does seem to me that you believe that the article is too focused on a small group of (mostly western) scholars. If I'm not misinterpreting what you've written, you want to include more non-Western views and that's not by any means an unreasonable thing to want. Unfortunately, the length of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're driving at. Once again, I urge you to keep your comments brief and focused on specific changes (brief proposals containing the exact wording you'd like to see - note the brief - are the productive way to go). You should also read the essay WP:Wall of text to get some sense of how other editors view your lengthy comments. Clearly, you can contribute a great deal to Misplaced Pages, but that will only happen if you better understand how things work around here. --regentspark (comment) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Oh, no that's not what I recommend. I wonder if I should do another short summary? The problem was that @Joshua Jonathan: posted a very long comment in Reply by JJ and again in POV tag. I tried to answer some of his points. But perhaps I should have just ignored what he said? Some of the things he said were very tangential to the issues I raised. We have tried focused proposals in the past but they simply didn't work, the views were too different on the article to come to a consensus on even the smallest point, such as the use of the word "redeath" in the article, and I think I know why now.

What I recommend is that because we have such a different views from the sutra tradition Buddhists and from this small group of almost entirely western scholars (AFAIK there are no non westerners - except I think someone from Japan) - that they just can't be merged into a single article. The western scholars barely mention the Buddhist scholars and the Buddhist scholars don't mention the western scholars at all. And they have radically different views on what count as WP:RS. Both types of WP:RS are notable and reliable and also valid secondary sources for their respective views according to wikipedia but not for each other's views. Their views are as radically different as the views of Christians and Muslims on Resurrection of Jesus who similarly rarely mention each other. For this reason I think the central articles Four Noble Truths, Anatta, Karma in Buddhism, Nirvana etc need to be split according to a WP:SUBPOV, just as was done for Resurrection of Jesus. The WP:SUBPOVs would rely on different WP:RS. After looking at this closely I now think that it would confuse the reader too much to try a parallel exposition of both at once in the same article.

Do you think it might be appropriate to have a new section summarizing the issues I mention in the POV tag, but longer than one sentence, to edit the tag to point to that new section, and then to just add what I said above? It could be "Summary of reasons for the POV tag and proposal for a solution" put after the new "Remove POV tag" post. Robert Walker (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I've drafted out a post for the page - what do you think? I did a longer reply to you here but it's better as a draft post I think so moved some of the material there. It makes very specific recommendations Here it is: POV tag.

It's fairly long but hopefully not excessive. It's hard to be detailed enough so the reader sees the reason for the POV tag, to also present the concrete proposals in enough detail to be understood and also to keep to a small number of words. I've done my best and welcome suggestions for ways to make it shorter. Robert Walker (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed it some now mainly by putting the list of differences into a separate article, which users can click through and read if they want to. So most of what would actually go on the page is a constructive suggestion for what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Robert, I've asked Ms Sarah Welch to help out as well so you will have another pair of eyes on the material. I did read through the POV tag text you've linked to above and will explain why you still need to focus on brevity. But first, a comment on the content of what you've written. In principle, I agree that Misplaced Pages articles on religion should include material drawn from established and well recognized practitioners of that religion. In practice, however, this boils down to figuring out which practitioners and scholars are established and well recognized, and then, of all the things they have said or discoursed upon, what should we include. Working purely on first principles (i.e., with no content knowledge whatsoever), it seems to me that anything important that the Dalai Lama (taking him purely as an example) has to say would, by necessity, be discussed by academic Buddhist scholars. Therefore, we don't - and shouldn't - go directly to his discourses but should instead rely on academic commentaries on the discourses of the Dalai Lama. If these are missing in our articles, then you make a good point. If not, then I'm not so sure.

  About brevity. You have to understand how Misplaced Pages works. If you want to change something but are getting pushback against your changes, we have a process of dispute resolution that you can follow. However, DR works best with specifics because, only then, a dispassionate observer can examine sources and judge the appropriate weight that a view represents. Working with broad ideas never works well when you don't have complete control over the process, because broad ideas are great in principle but tend to be lousy when it comes to achieving practical goals. Your POV tag text is a good example of good broad ideas (we should also have material drawn from scholars who come from the Buddhist tradition) but not so great practical ones because you're proposing grand changes (let's just make different, parallel, articles). Instead, you should focus on small changes "The article summarizes X this way but Rahula (ref - preferably a secondary one) says it should be something else entirely". If you get pushback, head toward WP:DR and see what happens. Assuming your broad vision is correct, the article will expand and become weighty with the "Buddhist" viewpoint and then it may be worth considering separate articles. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert Walker, Your comments, like everyone's, are most welcome in 4NT article. Collaboration is easier, as is intervention/dispute resolution process, when your suggestions are "Brief + Specific" rather than a wall of post. Similarly, please consider this and this suggestion of Farang Rak Tham few days ago. The article cannot be a quote farm of a particular translation of primary sources, nor can be a place for OR, nor summary of non-RS blogs/websites. It can neither be predominantly Theravada nor Mahayana nor that from one of the now extinct schools, nor modernistic perspective. The best way forward is to consider the community agreed guidelines, consider what FRT, Jim, JJ and so many are stating, then make specific suggestions citing specific page number of one or more WP:RS as RP suggests above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:

" Working purely on first principles (i.e., with no content knowledge whatsoever), it seems to me that anything important that the Dalai Lama (taking him purely as an example) has to say would, by necessity, be discussed by academic Buddhist scholars. Therefore, we don't - and shouldn't - go directly to his discourses but should instead rely on academic commentaries on the discourses of the Dalai Lama. If these are missing in our articles, then you make a good point. If not, then I'm not so sure. "

What you are missing there is that the Dalai Lama is regarded as highly learned in Tibetan Buddhism by the standards used to evaluate WP:RS in this topic area. He passed his Geshe Lharumpa degree age 23. This is a Tibetan Buddhist qualification that normally requires fifteen years of study, often more. He was examined by top scholars in Tibet in three different monasteries - it's an examination that has a very tough "viva" where you are asked questions but you also have to ask challenging questions too, and you are judged not just on your answers but also on your questions. We don't have anything like it in Western scholarship. He is thoroughly versed in the Tibetan sutras. Not only that, he has completed studies in all four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. This is rare. He is definitely recognized and well-regarded in Tibetan Buddhist scholarship by other Tibetan Buddhists. He has also written many books on Buddhism. The Dalai Lama's "The art of happiness: a handbook for living" has 558 cites in google scholar. . There are 18 results which cite it with Buddhism in the title. . Even the western academics make a lot of use of his books.

@Ms Sarah Welch: is not independent in these debates. She sides with @Joshua Jonathan: in just about everything he says.

I can understand what you are saying. But we tried small changes. They don't work. And - suppose you were giving that advice to Muslims and Christians who were working on an article on Resurrection of Jesus. Do you think it would work to go through the article one small change as another until they agreed on a unified treatment of the subject? It's like that here. The discussions go round and round in circles because they are such different systems of thought. The answers phrased within one system just don't work as answers to the questions phrased within the other. I listed some of the differences here: Why the Western academic ideas need to be separated out as WP:SUBPOV articles, but the Therevadhan and Mahayana ideas on core topics can be handled within a single article

When judging this please be aware that the Western ideas will probably seem much more familiar and understandable than the Buddhist ideas. When @Joshua Jonathan: originally rewrote Four Noble Truths then we got some people commenting that it made much more sense now. But it made more sense because it changed the meaning of the four truths. Meanwhile the Buddhist who had been editing the article just left the project.

@Dorje108: and I did attempt dispute resolution. But the first time we announced we were going to do a DRN, then JJ immediately took me to WP:ANI over some posts I had written several weeks earlier. When that was over, we worked on it some more and he took me back to WP:ANI again. Of course when there is an action against you in WP:ANI then you can't do a DRN because that is not permitted if one of the participants has an action against them. After that, @Joshua Jonathan: was taken to WP:ARE for copyvio, all of this in very quick succession. By the end of this - we debated whether to try to continue with the DRN and decided that for it to succeed we needed to have good will and some feeling that the other party was going to try to find a compromise with us. We just didn't have that. It was a case of actions speaking louder than words. We just didn't see how it could work with other editors who were so ready to take me to WP:ANI at the drop of a hat as it seemed to me.

But I now don't think it could have worked anyway because it has become really clear - back then I didn't understand the reasons for JJ's edits which seemed just bizarre to both of us. They made no sense to sutra tradition Buddhists. But later I discovered that Richard Gombrich has this totally different slant on what the Buddhist teachings are about. Most sutra tradition Buddhists are not aware of this at all and the teachers and books and articles within our tradition simply never discuss it. The western academics also pay very little attention to what the sutra tradition Buddhists say, mainly cite them in order to disagree with them. That's why it seems necessary to do two separate WP:SUBPOVs. The problem is that the western academics tend to just say the sutra tradition Buddhists are plain "wrong". But nevertheless there are millions of people who think like this, who have this faith that the Buddha was teaching something worth investigating in the Four Truths in the form in which they are stated in the sutras, that Nirvana is cessation of dukkha in this lifetime, and all those other things that I mentioned. It surely is not the solution to have only articles presenting the western academic viewpoint according to which the Buddhist faith in the sutra traditions is simply wrong and confused. It's fine for them to believe that. That is their WP:SUBPOV. But it's just not how we think of it and just as Christians have their own articles presenting their faith in Resurrection of Jesus we should be able to have articles representing our faith here too and not just western academic Buddhism. The other editors will say we are all just confused, that what we call reliable sources are not reliable, that they should only be presented here as filtered through the lens of academic Buddhism. That's the problem and that's why I added the tag. Hope that is clearer now? Robert Walker (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Also just to say when I added the tag - I'm aware it is a complex and difficult situation. It would be great if the other editors would just agree to my proposal. But it seems probably not. Perhaps other editors will have other ideas. If we can leave the tag on the article for some time we can see what happens. This is my proposal and it remains my view that it is the best approach. Let's see what others say if we leave the tag for some time. Also whatever we do I think it is important to alert readers that the article is not WP:NPOV but presents a particular WP:SUBPOV. Is there a "subpov" tag? It would be more appropriate but in absence of that it should be labeled as WP:POV because it is, whether or not we have an immediate solution. Robert Walker (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: are you fluent in Pali and Sanskrit? Have you read any original Sutta or any other original Buddhist manuscript/text, from any Buddhist tradition, that was composed before the 20th century? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Would you ask an editor commenting on articles on Christianity if they are fluent in New Testament Greek ( Biblical Koine)? Of course as a Buddhist I've read Suttas. Just as Christians have read the Bible. The Pali Canon is far too vast for anyone except a scholar like Walpola Rahula to read in its entirety but I expect most sutra tradition Buddhists must have read at least a few sutras. These sutras were composed centuries ago. I believe on the basis of historical, internal and many other forms of evidence that the Pali Canon was composed during Buddha's lifetime as a result of reading the scholarly articles on both sides of the argument. I'm not sure why you are asking this question. Robert Walker (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the Suttas in Pali, Sanskrit or only their English translations? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Only their English translations. Just as few Christians have read the New Testament in its original language of New Testament Greek. But in the Buddhist tradition especially you rely on the scholars like Walpola Rahula to read the sutras in detail. They are very easy to misunderstand and it is easy to take things out of context unless you are familiar with the rest of the canon. So you read the scholars, listen to the teachers, and also read the original sutras themselves in your own language. Though it's good to be able to read them in Pali / Sanskrit / Tibetan of course. Robert Walker (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Just to say. I don't really need you to agree that my proposal is the right solution. But can you see that it is a genuine proposal, that I do think that the article is biased, and that I have what seem to me to be good reason for it? We can't expect a WP:NPOV discussion of the proposal by the nature of the situation, because the only editors left remaining editing these articles are the ones who are deeply immersed in academic Buddhism. That's because they revert the edits of everyone else.

But if we had a POV tag on the Four Noble Truths article - and I'd like to add a POV tag on the Anatta article too as it is written in a particularly POV way - and then link them both to a discussion of this proposal - then over a period of time as people read the articles, we might get a wider range of perspectives on the matter. I know that @Dorje108: had similar views to me, he was nonplussed by JJ's massive rewrites of these articles and tried to stop him. But he is no longer active here. It's no wonder. He'd edited those articles patiently following consensus editing every week for a year, only to see them suddenly rewritten within a couple of weeks, all his hard work just removed and replaced by this academic Buddhism, ideas that just don't match what we regard as WP:RS in Buddhism. If the tags were left there for a while we may begin to hear comments once more from the sutra tradition Buddhists. Robert Walker (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That goes to the heart of the issue. I am quite fluent with Sanskrit. I can slowly make my way through manuscripts in Pali and many other Indian languages, as they are related. Your allegations about what Buddhist Suttas and texts state is way off. Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. Please don't allege "no Suttas says this" in the universal, when the truth is "Rahula's or XYZ's interpretation of this or that Sutta which Robert Walker has read does not state this". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)